BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 600|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 600
Author: Costa (D)
Amended: 9/3/99
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 5/18/99
AYES: Escutia, Morrow, O'Connell, Peace, Sher, Wright,
Schiff
NOT VOTING: Burton, Haynes
SENATE FLOOR : 39-0, 5/27/99 (Consent)
AYES: Alarcon, Alpert, Baca, Bowen, Brulte, Burton,
Chesbro, Costa, Dunn, Escutia, Figueroa, Hayden, Hughes,
Johannessen, Johnson, Johnston, Karnette, Kelley, Knight,
Leslie, Lewis, McPherson, Monteith, Morrow, Mountjoy,
Murray, O'Connell, Ortiz, Peace, Perata, Polanco,
Poochigian, Rainey, Schiff, Sher, Solis, Speier,
Vasconcellos, Wright
NOT VOTING: Haynes
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 80-0, 9/8/99 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Trial court funding
SOURCE : California State Association of Counties
DIGEST : This was a work in progress bill. As it left
the Senate, this bill made two non-substantive changes to
the trial court funding of court operations.
Assembly Amendments constitute the bill. The bill now
CONTINUED
SB 600
Page
2
enacts various technical clarifications to the
Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997.
ANALYSIS :
Existing Law
1.Declares that commencing on July 1, 1997, no county shall
be responsible for funding court operations.
2.States that if a trial court desires to receive or
continue to receive a specific service from a county or
city and county as provided in subdivision (c), and the
county or city and county desire to provide or continue
to provide that service as provided in subdivision (c),
the presiding judge of that court and the county or city
and county shall enter into a contract for that service.
3.Provides that arbitration costs are a court operation for
the purpose of trial court funding, and are thereby paid
by the state and not the county.
4.Requires the Judicial Council (JC), in consultation with
the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) and
the California County Auditors Association, to study and
make recommendations to the Legislature by February 1,
1999, on alternative procedures that would improve the
collection and remittance of revenues to the Trial Court
Trust Fund.
5.Establishes, in the Trial Court Funding Act of 1997, the
Task Force on Court Facilities to, among other things,
make recommendations to the Legislature on which
entity-state or county or shared-shall be responsible for
funding the cost of court facilities.
6.Requires trial courts to deposit state funds for court
operations into the local trial court operations fund.
This bill:
1.Clarifies the intention of the Legislature to provide for
continuing responsibility for funding court operations.
SB 600
Page
3
2.Corrects an error in the existing provision allowing
trial courts to continue to receive specific services
from cities and counties through contract.
3.Provides that the JC, in consultation with the affected
court, shall set arbitrator compensation, and that the
court shall pay such compensation.
4.Provides that a JC report to the Legislature on
alternative procedures to improve the collection and
remittance of revenues to the Trial Court Trust Fund
shall be completed not later than February 1, 2000,
rather than February 1, 1999.
5.Requires courts to deposit all funds received by a court
from any source for operating or program purposes to be
deposited into a local trial court operations fund,
including grant funds and funds for other than trial
court operations. Further requires that such funds shall
be identified and maintained in a separate account
pursuant to procedures adopted by JC, and that this
requirement does not apply to bail or other funds
required to be held in trust, if those funds are not for
operating or program purposes.
6.Makes technical changes relative to reimbursement for
costs of trials in change of venue cases and makes other
technical changes.
7.Removes the requirement that the boards of supervisors
make application for proposed Court Appointed Special
Advocate program funding, and instead provides that the
courts in a particular county will be responsible for
submitting proposal requests.
Comments
This annual clean-up legislation makes a host of technical
refinements to the Trial Court Funding Act. According to
the author's office, "This is a continuation of the
Legislature's commitment to provide funding for trial
courts. These changes are necessary to clarify the roles
that the state and counties play in this complex issue."
SB 600
Page
4
The Trial Court Funding Act was enacted in 1997 in AB 233
(Escutia), Chapter 850, Statutes of 1997, to provide for
the state to assume responsibility for funding trial court
operations, and to provide that counties contribute to the
cost of operating the courts by making quarterly payments
to the state. Most recently AB 1590 (Assembly Budget
Committee),
Chapter 406, Statutes of 1998, increased state support for
trial courts and reduced county support levels.
Among other things, the Trial Court Funding Act required
courts and counties to make a number of administrative
changes to accommodate the transition to state funding.
This bill reflects a consensus between the counties and the
courts on changes needed to continue the effective
implementation of state trial court funding. This bill
address procedural and administrative changes and statutory
inconsistencies.
CSAC and JC are the joint sponsors of this measure. They
state that the bill will "provide necessary clean-up to
provisions of the comprehensive trial court funding
legislation of last session."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 9/8/99)
California State Association of Counties
Counties of Butte El Dorado, Madera, Marin, Mariposa, Napa,
San Joaquin, Siskiyou, Tulare, Tuolumne
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, "This is
a continuation of the Legislature's commitment to provide
funding for trial courts. These changes are necessary to
clarify the roles that the State and counties play in this
complex issue." The California State Association of
Counties is the sponsor of this bill. They state the bill
will "provide necessary clean-up to provisions of the
comprehensive trial court funding legislation of last
session."
SB 600
Page
5
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Aanestad, Ackerman, Alquist, Aroner, Ashburn,
Baldwin, Bates, Battin, Baugh, Bock, Brewer, Briggs,
Calderon, Campbell, Cardenas, Cardoza, Cedillo, Corbett,
Correa, Cox, Cunneen, Davis, Dickerson, Ducheny, Dutra,
Firebaugh, Florez, Floyd, Frusetta, Gallegos, Granlund,
Havice, Hertzberg, Honda, House, Jackson, Kaloogian,
Keeley, Knox, Kuehl, Leach, Lempert, Leonard, Longville,
Lowenthal, Machado, Maddox, Maldonado, Margett, Mazzoni,
McClintock, Migden, Nakano, Olberg, Oller, Robert
Pacheco, Rod Pacheco, Papan, Pescetti, Reyes, Romero,
Runner, Scott, Shelley, Soto, Steinberg, Strickland,
Strom-Martin, Thompson, Thomson, Torlakson, Vincent,
Washington, Wayne, Wesson, Wiggins, Wildman, Wright,
Zettel, Villaraigosa
RJG:kb 9/9/99 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****